They don't demand an end to the unconscionable bloodshed carried out by the Obama administration, which is nurturing another generation of war and terrorism. They don't even suggest that the U.S. President who continues to fling drone-fired missiles at population centers in several countries should be held accountable for doing so, or for his role in destroying what remains of the Bill of Rights.

"I am sure Paul's motives derive from ideological fervor rather than a conscious desire to oppress minorities,"allows Jonathan Chait of New York magazine in a passage suppurating collectivist sanctimony. "But the relationship between the abstract principles of his worldview and the ugly racism with which it has so frequently been expressed is hardly coincidental."

There is nothing "abstract" about the non-aggression principle; if it had been followed, four-year-old Shakirah would not have been disfigured for life in a drone strike conducted by the federal government that Chait and people who share his perspective exalt as the arbiter of all social conflicts and a redemptive influence in human affairs.